It's time to officially Pit Joe Paterno and the Penn State football program.

The BBQ Pit
401

Read the goddamn indictment if you must post your speculation here. He explicitly used the phrase “subjected to anal intercourse” in his discussion with Curley and Shultz. Their failure to reveal this in their initial testimony is precisely what has them up on perjury charges.

Don’t expect people to devote any more time to your speculations than you’ve devoted to actually, you know, investigating the facts that are readily available to anyone who isn’t too goddamn lazy to look before offering uninformed jerk-off speculation.

402

This only makes sense if you think the people involved were acting (or failing to act) out of ignorance. Do you give them that much credit? I would say their later apparent perjury argues pretty strongly against it.

It’s also arguable that everyone at the lowest levels, even the janitors, acted according to the law – they reported what they saw to their supervisors, who in turn failed to report to police authorities.

It seems to me ignorance is not the problem. Some kind of weird cunning self-interest is the problem, and IMO the only thing that will change it is to change the equation in the heads of these higher management types. The only solution can think of is to stiffen the penalties for failing to report, but if you can think of others I’d be glad to hear them.

Which reminds me – some administrative process would have, at worst, a dismissal penalty for failure to follow it. Which, IMO, is not enough to deter anything.

And if there’s going to be a training program of some kind, the only thing necessary would be, “This is the law. Obey it!”.

403

Calm down.

I read the indictment, and I’m aware that he said this. However, they disagree with him (IIRC).

The prosecutors apparently believe that his testimony, and so do you, but that doesn’t mean it’s true beyond any doubt.

People occasionally misremember things in their grand jury testimony, especially when testifying about the details of things that happened close to a decade prior, and which may be clouded by their later shifting interpretations of what they’ve seen. Happens, believe it or not.

404

Of course, if Sandusky does end it all, there will forever be a core contingent who remember him from his defensive coordinator glory days and will always bemoan that such a “good man” was “hounded to death” by such malicious speculation…

405

I doubt that. I think everyone views him as a monster at this point.

406

Latest news is that Penn State President Graham Spanier is either quitting or being fired at the Board of Trustees meeting tonight.

Let’s see now…Penn State is now without its president, its second-in-command (Curley), and its best-known public figure.

407

Okay, fine, but that’s attenuated beyond the point of being really useful to the discussion of Paterno’s and other people’s obligations. Paterno separately testified to hearing of “sexual contact with a young boy.” Unless he also misremembered, whatever McQ told him was way above the threshold of needing to not just report, but follow-up, call the cops, etc. Unless your speculation embraces the possibility that both McQ and JP subsequent to the events upgraded the severity that they had perceived at the time.

To the comments saying that anyone criticiizing Paterno is just an Internet tough guy but that in real life none of us would likely have done any different (paraphrase) – I don’t buy it. And NOT because I’m a hero, I’m not. It’s just the severity of the events. I’ve reported things to the authorities and my bosses that were WAY less serious than this – inappropriate romantic attentions paid to co-workers, major expense fudging. The things I’ve overlooked have been either de minimis or hopelessly murky (boss hitting on subordinate when both were drunk and effectively co-conspirators, questionable submission of personal meal expenditures as work-related). This sort of thing just isn’t de minimis, doesn’t have any gray areas. It doesn’t take a hero to be repulsed and impelled to do something effective (which McQ and Paterno both knew their minimal reporting was not, given that it led nowhere).

408

Here’s the actual team reaction, which is full of outrage . . . at the criticism of JP.

409

Actually, my speculation was not directed so much at Paterno’s liability, but was a reaction to several posts questioning why McQueary reacted the way he did.

But I also disagree with you about whether there is any gray area when it comes to dealing with “sexual contact with a young boy”, as discussed previously.

410

Well, we’ll have to leave it at that. I’m arguably hyper-sensitive on “appearance of impropriety” issues because the area I work in has had a history of big (heterosexual, at-least-sort-of-age-approriate) harassment scandals and the like. Given that I’m highly reluctant to go to lunch one-on-one with a younger female co-worker (yes, it’s that bad an environment), I can’t imagine the context in which any interaction between a naked grown man and a naked boy not related to him is anything but seriously wrong, but it seems you’ve given some thought to it and can think of mitigating circumstances, so so be it.

411

[QUOTE=Fotheringay-Phipps]
I’m talking about what he understood at the time that he actually saw it.
[/QUOTE]

It is beyond controversy that, in 2002, McQueary went to Joe Paterno (at his home!–obviously McQueary thought it was a desperate situation) and used the words “sex” and “young boy.” Joe Paterno has admitted that.

[QUOTE=Fotheringay-Phipps]
But I also disagree with you about whether there is any gray area when it comes to dealing with “sexual contact with a young boy”, as discussed previously.
[/QUOTE]

But how do you know the degree of sexual contact unless you investigate?

Look, if someone comes to you and uses the words “child” and “sex”, you have no right to decide it’s severity. You have one obligation: to contact law enforcement officials so that competent, trained professionals can determine the extent of sexual contact, if any.

412

Ok, I just heard ESPN report that, in 1998, Sandusky was admonished not to shower with children again. Beyond the WTF! of that, Joe Paterno had to know that Sandusky was investigated relating to showering with children. So, given the earlier admonishment, McQueary’s appeal to Paterno in 2002 about seeing Sandusky naked in a shower with a young boy didn’t raise any suspicions?

WTF?

413

I agree (I think).

But JP had given this information to those whose job it was to deal with this type of situation. Unless he had reason to believe that they had not done their jobs, he could reasonably assume that the necessary investigation had been done.

That’s why what exactly he was told is significant. Because if he knew that McQueary had seen the Sandusky raping a kid, then there’s no way he should have been up and about after that, and this implied that Curley and Schultz had covered it up and he (JP) needed to press further. But if all he knew was that there was some sort of improper contact, and he reported it to his superiors, then he could assume that they had dealt with it properly and contacted the relevant authorities, and the investigation done and steps taken etc. etc., and no further action was necessary.

Again, JP was a football coach, and this guy was no longer his employee, and he was not a witness to the incident. The accepted procedure, as specified by the law, was that he inform his superiors and let them deal with it from there. Unless he knew that they were dealing with it improperly, I don’t see why he needed to micro-manage their area of responsibility.

I mean, the police and prosecutors are themselves not always zealous enough in prosecuting these (& other) crimes. So imagine that you hear about some crime of this (or any other) sort, and report it to the police. Do you need to follow up with the police to make sure they do their jobs? (“Hey, why haven’t you arrested so-and-so yet - I already told you I heard he was a criminal?”). No, as long as you don’t see evidence to the contrary, you can follow accepted procedures, and assume that those whose job it is to deal with it are doing so.

414

McQueary informed Paterno on the night of the incident. There could have been a child in immediate danger. Paterno waited until the next day to inform the administration.

And he never followed up, apparently. He wasn’t curious what became of the situation regarding a report of a guy with a history of misdeeds with children in a shower, naked, with a child? Why didn’t Paterno ask follow-up questions? Why didn’t he ensure that such a accusation got the investigation it deserved? He shares as much culpability as the people he told.

415

Without question.

One of the points here is that Paterno has influence at Penn State that far exceeds that of normal top-level football coaches (which is saying a lot), and a record of responsible behavior that also is well above average. So the argument that because he did the bare legal minimum he should skate - which would be marginal in the average case - simply doesn’t work.

416

You’re right, the current players should not be punished, which is exactly why Paterno should be out now. The university will go on, the players classes (remember them) will go on, and even the games can go on. But they should not continue with Paterno as coach; that would be punishing the players.

If Penn State fans would place winning above morality by rallying around Paterno, do you really think a poor reception from Ohio State and Wisconsin fans would be motivated purely by righteous indignation?

417

Not according to the Grand Jury Presentment:

418

If the report came to you, and it involved your child, would you be comfortable leaving it at “I informed my supervisor”?

If not, why is it ok when it is not your child?
Again, the bar is pretty low on something like this - it just demands follow up, by everyone that was made aware.

419

I don’t think that’s the problem, that there weren’t any suspicions.

I think (and this is in the realm of reasonable speculation) that everyone who had contact with Sandusky for any period of time knew for quite awhile that “Jerry had a little problem” or “sometimes Jerry’s too affectionate with the boys.” By the time they had to formally tell him to stop showering one on one with naked little boys (seriously, who needs to be told that?), I’ve little doubt that people had seen, and in some cases, complained about it multiple times. I’m sure when Paterno heard from McQ about the shower rape he rolled his eyes and thought “That Jerry!”

And these are the attitudes that got us where we are with this case. This is why I’m so resistant to acknowledge the existence of any gray area for actual sexual contact with a child – pedophiles seem to be masters at seizing on the gray area, misrepresenting their motives, claiming to be misunderstood, minimizing their conduct as “not really that severe,” and ever trying to push the boundaries on that gray area. The counts of the indictment could have been ripped from the pages of an expose on Bruce Ritter (disgraced priest who systematically abused boys in the home for runaways he founded). The parallels are almost mundane in their predictability at this point. Notice how Sandusky started small (giving gifts and rides to kids), escalated to seemingly-innocuous physical contact (wrestling, back cracking), then to pretty inappropriate contact (kissing the kid’s stomach), then to full on rape – always grooming, always escalating, always testing the boundaries, always seeing what he could get away with.

The only difference here is that it’s now, not 1960 or 1970. I’d wager there were few if any books widely read or available back then about the profiles of serial molesters. The issue certainly hadn’t been discussed on broadcast television or publicized through the Internet or PSAs. I think some early deniers in the RCC (probably not all) probably did IRL think that child molesters could change, or believed the perps’ excuse that “it was just a one time thing, won’t happen again.”

Paterno et al., ca. 2000, do not have any of those excuses. Any educated person would have taken one look at a single incident of Sandusky caught with his hand on a boy’s leg, or in a shower with a boy, or curled up in bed with a boy, and said – “that guy can never, ever be alone with kids if I can prevent it.” I wonder if Paterno ever let his grandsons hang out with Uncle Jerry – that’d be an interesting question.

Oh, and I’m assuming there’s a Mrs. Sandusky. If so, I don’t want to forget and accidentally give her a free pass. No one leads a double life like this without being enabled (“Night honey, I’m off to sleep in the basement with one of my orphan kids!”).

420

It’s OK when it’s not your child for the same reason that it’s not OK when it is. You have a greater duty of care to your own child than you do to a strange kid. In the case of a strange kid, you’re OK passing it on to those whose responsibility it is. In the case of your own child, you are the one whose responsibility it is.

It’s the same as my response to Huerta’s rhetorical query earlier. Of course JP had a greater responsibility to players on his team then he did to random kids. He had a fiduciary responsibility to these players because his job was to lead them (at least as regards to the football program). He did not have that same fiduciary responsibility to other kids. That didn’t mean that he had zero responsibility. But it did mean that his responsibility was more limited, such that he could suffice by following procedures and making sure that the responsible people knew.